A bill in the Indiana House of Representatives calls on state government to acknowledge “the need for divine providence” and “submit its ways to the Lord Jesus Christ.”
House Resolution 53 also declares the Indiana House of Representatives “is unified in its steadfast commitment to individually and corporately returning to God and upholding the biblical principles set forth in the word of God.”
Republicans control the Indiana House with 70 seats, compared to 30 for Democrats. Republicans also control the state Senate and the governorship.
The bill seeking to enshrine Christian heritage within the government was introduced by Republican Rep. Joanna King and has 20 co-sponsors. King is a small-business owner who attends Maple City Chapel in Middlebury, Ind.
The bill says the Founding Fathers of the United States were “compelled by a unified desire for peace and the freedom to pursue righteousness” and “relying on biblical principles as the moral authority to guide their character, upheld a standard for the common good of all.”
The bill is titled “Recognizing the Importance of Repentance.”
The Founders “did not seek to establish a government based on human wisdom alone but on the ‘laws of nature and of nature’s God,’” the bill also states.
The bill, titled “Recognizing the Importance of Repentance,” was referred to the Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.
Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government actions “respecting an establishment of religion” — and Indiana’s Constitution includes similar language — even some critics of church-state entanglement say this bill may not technically be unconstitutional because it is a resolution, not a law.
“Rep. King is sending a clear message to her non-Christian constituents that she does not see them as full Americans,” said Ryan Jayne of the Freedom from Religion Action Fund. “This is Christian nationalism, and it runs counter to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution.”
“In theory, I would say this resolution is clearly unconstitutional,” he told the Evansville Courier and Press. “But in practice, because resolutions don’t really do anything, they’re virtually impossible to challenge.”
Jim Olsen
Also last week, the Oklahoma House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 1013 which proclaims, “Christ is King.”
The resolution was introduced by Republican Rep. Jim Olsen and Sen. Shane Jett.
“This resolution is a bold testament to Oklahoma’s faith-based legacy,” Olsen said. “During Holy Week, we honor the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and reaffirm the principles that guide our state. I’m proud to lead this effort to declare ‘Christ is King’ and call upon the help of the ‘Supreme Judge of the World.’”
As in Indiana, the bill is a resolution and does not propose any law.
In February, the North Dakota House of Representatives voted down, 59-31, a resolution declaring the kingship of Jesus Christ. House Concurrent Resolution 3020 was sponsored by Rep. Nico Rios, R-Williston and urged North Dakota to recognize Jesus Christ as king.
That defeated bill urged North Dakota to “acknowledge the kingship of Jesus Christ over all the world so that this great state may at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”
Meanwhile in Ohio, two pastors who also are Republican House members introduced the Leland Muhlenberg House Joint Resolution that would urge U.S. President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress to repeal the Johnson Amendment. That IRS regulation says nonprofit organizations like churches cannot publicly endorse political candidates.
The Ohio bill was introduced by Rep. Gary Click and Rep. Johnathan Newman. Click serves as pastor of Fremont Baptist Temple, and Newman serves as pastor of Koinos Christian Fellowship, a Southern Baptist congregation.
Gary Click
Click told BNG he sees his bill as opposite the ones in Indiana and Oklahoma. “Mine asks the government to stay out of religion, while theirs (based on your summary) asks the government to engage in religion,” he said. “The intention of my resolution is to enforce the separation of church and state, while theirs may lean in the opposite direction.”
Click said his goal is not to for churches to endorse candidate, “but rather for the government not to limit free speech in churches through taxation. In my 35 years of ministry, I have never asked the IRS for permission on what to say in the pulpit, nor would I. Had I ever felt it necessary to endorse, I would have. In the pulpit, I answer to God, not the government.”
The pastor-legislator said he never felt it necessary to endorse candidates from the pulpit. “I have always just preached on issues from a biblical perspective. People are generally smart enough to figure it out, and they do. My point is that churches should make that decision, not the government. I have endorsed on Issues when I felt it necessary, specifically pro-life issues.”
Click said he’s allowed candidates and officeholders to introduce themselves to his congregation, regardless of party affiliation. “This allows our congregation to meet their public servants and candidates. Unfortunately, many people/pastors have misgivings based on their perceived understanding of the law. This hinders some from actually informing their people on the issues and biblical principles of government.”
He believes the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional “because it violates the First Amendment. Therefore, it should be repealed. The government has no business regulating the content of sermons or the free speech of churches, even those I disagree with.”